The current science (and our references)

---

The "science" on the issue of wireless radiation can often feel like an overwhelming (and internally contradictory) sea of jargon. 

These days, it often feels like we have two equally unsatisfying options:

1. dismiss scientific findings that conflict with our preconceived assumptions 
2. cherry pick scientific findings that support those preconceived convictions 

We don't support either of those options. 

We think you should look over the literature yourself. BUT it takes a LOT of time to learn the lingo, figure out who to trust (and why--particularly given the influence of funding), and put everything together. We've tried to save you some of the legwork. 

In this section, you'll find the following:

• experimental studies showing that the effects of RF are non-thermal and frequency/physiologically specific 
• the oft-cited NTP and RAMAZZINI Studies (showing risks of cancer and DNA damage)  
• experimental studies showing biological risks (carcinogenic, reproductive, neurological, cognitive, psychological, cardiac, etc.)
• epidemiological studies on reproductive risks 
• experimental studies  showing effects far below FCC limits
• meta- reviews and responses 

Scientists on all "sides" of this debate seem to agree that the quality of research on this topic is far from satisfactory. The influence of funding (often from telecoms companies is a huge factor). So, too, is the fact that this issue is highly complex and requires expertise in biology/health/toxicology as well as the physics of radiation and the engineering of modern technologies. This leaves a LOT of room for misunderstandings. 

So we've tried to compile studies that are as trustworthy as possible. That means that with the exception of the section marked "scientific reviews," EVERY STUDY referenced below has been pre-screened to make sure it is:

• an experimental or epidemiological study (not a meta-review or a case report) 
• published in a highly respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal 
• conducted by a research team with at least one scientist who has a PhD in biophysics, biology, toxicology, or a related field. Many of the research teams also include a member with an MD
• no  explicit conflicts of interests (e.g., not funded by tellecomms companies OR by anti-radiation advocacy groups) or interests that were opposing to final conclusions 

In general, we’ve given preference to research teams with a diverse experience set (e.g., both biology/genetics/toxicology and physics/engineering). We’ve also  highlighted studies that were given high quality ratings  by overwhelmingly critical reviewers (e.g., Karipidis et al 2021), and/or studies that found evidence of health risks even though they were funded by institutions with histories of under-emphasizing the potential risks of RF (e.g., the NIH, CDC, FDA).